1928

In the middle of Prohibition, Prohibition= outlaws the sale of alcoholic beverages Roy Olmstead + partners violates the National Prohibition Act .
Imported and supplied alcoholic beverages. Prosecuted, tried and convicted in Federal Court.

 18th Amendment
Aka Prohibition Amendment effective from 1919-1933. Violated by many citizens
Bootleggers sold illegal liquor but rarely prosecuted. It was hard for the government to obtain evidence so they resorted to wire tapping telephones.

Olmsteads Actions He appealed the case to the Supreme Court for violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment by use of wiretapped evidence.

 4th Amendment
The Right of The People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

 5th Amendment
Protects a person charged with a criminal offense from being a witness against himself or herself. You cant self incriminate.

Questions Raised Whether either the 4th or 5th Amendment prohibits evidence obtained from telephone wiretaps?

 The Court Ruled 6 to 3 against Olmstead. Olmstead argued that since the evidence came entirely from wiretapping that it couldnt be used against him. Stating protection under the 4th and 5th Amendment. Since it was unwarranted and self-incriminating.

 If the 4th Amendment was not violated then the 5th wasnt either because no one forced him to speak over the phone. Does Wiretapping = Forcible entry ? If so it couldnt be used in court.

 Taft held that the 4th Amendment shows that the search is to be of material things the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The description of a warrant necessary to make the proceedings lawful is that it must specify the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

 But the Amendment doesnt forbid what has happened here because there was no searching, there was no seizure, said evidence was only obtained from listening. There was no entry.

Telephone lines are not protected by the 4th Amendment. Taft concluded that if evidence provided from non ethical sources by the government was thrown out than it would give criminals the upper hand.

 Justice Louis Brandeis

Disagreed, Decency, security and liberty demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commanded of the citizen.

 This decision lasted until 1967 (Katz case) which was overruled on grounds that a trespass was unnecessary for a violation of the 4th Amendment and it protected intangibles such as a conversation.

1. Why did the Supreme Court hold that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to wiretaps? The Supreme court stated the 4th Amendment didnt apply because there was no physical search and seizure just over heard conversations. 2. What did the Court say about the means by which the evidence is obtained? If the evidence is important then the method of obtaining it is unimportant.

3.Suppose you had broken a law, and the police found evidence of your crime by breaking into your home. Under the Olmstead ruling, would the evidence be admissible in trial? No because there would be need of a warrant. 4. What did Justice Brandeis mean when he said that the end justified the means? This statement refers to whether obtaining evidence through an illegal source makes it okay if you in the end can put a criminal in jail. Is it okay to stoop to the level of a criminal to put them in jail?

5. Do you agree with the Decision of the court? I do not agree with the decision of the court but the dissenting opinion because it defeats the purpose of both the 4th and 5th amendments if you can legally take some ones phone conversations and use it against them with out a warrant , it is an invasion of privacy.